Talk:Twilight Syndrome

Moonlight's place in series
Going off of my understanding of the Twilight Syndrome franchise, the way this page talks about Moonlight Syndrome is rather inaccurate. Although it calls it a "non-canon side-story", it follows straight on from the previous games in the series as a sequel. It is only later games that ignored it, like a retcon; calling it a "non-canon side-story" seems to be more like (inaccurate) fan-speak than actually presenting the history of the series. The thing is that this series is so obscure, especially in English, that I don't have any good sources to back this up. Furthermore, the conception of Suda's games being a "trilogy" is also something invented by fans; the interview cited has the interviewer bring this up, but not Suda himself, so I'm not sure if that can be considered as a source to be saying what this article says it's saying. These are just some thoughts that better editors than me should use, I'll only be changing things that are just not said anywhere in the sources. 67.168.184.59 (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding Moonlight's place in the series, I think calling it a gaiden is more accurate. In this interview, Suda says: だから『ムーンライト』は『トワイライト』をベースにしつつも、自由にやろうと思ったんですよね. This translates to roughly: "Even though Moonlight was based on Twilight, we thought to create it with a degree of freedom." The remarkably different tone in the game, the change in title, and the release of Twilight games after Moonlight is also testament to Moonlight being a side story. Regarding Moonlight's place in a trilogy, I agree. Kill Screen cites Silver Case, Flower, Sun, and Rain, and Killer7 as the "Kill the Past" trilogy HERE. The source that refers to Moonlight being in the trilogy seems less reliable to me. And honestly, the notion of any of these games being in a trilogy is so rarely referred to, that it doesn't make sense to include. I think we can definitely say there are relations between the games, but calling it a trilogy is a tad too far. TarkusAB talk 02:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Titles section:
That should be formatted as a chart. Title, system, release date. That should be the section which gives a very quick overview of the series, and you can get info at a simple glance. It should avoid synopses. The synopses should go to the history section or the lede. Right now, information can't be gotten from a glance, meaning it's not useful in point form at all, as it's too text heavy. You have to actually sit and read it to get real info from it. That kind of defeats the purpose of point form doesn't it? Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not completely opposed to trying a table, but I think the current layout is the best compromise. The history section is for development history, so should not host plot synopses. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, so should not have synopses of each individual game, nor information not written elsewhere below. So those aren't options.
 * I bolded the titles to help with readability. All the information you're suggesting can be gotten from a glance at the beginning of each bullet. I borrowed this formatting from Persona (series) which is an FA of an equal amount of games. With the exception of the first two games, each game has a completely different plot, so creating a separate table and synopsis section would not read very well. Each game would have its own two or three sentences, and I don't know how to write that without it looking amateurish. I think the current layout is a good compromise and ultimately more concise.  TarkusAB talk 23:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)